Allowed

Yameen Shahid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/9255/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal matter under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS. The court found the victim's statement uncorroborative, noted the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and emphasized constitutional safeguards under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, trial attendance, and cooperating with the investigation.

Yameen Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71493

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9255 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yameen Shahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Zeeshan Alvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on recod.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 112 of 2024, under sections 137 (2), 87 BNS,Police Station- Sadatganj, District -Lucknow.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS demolishes the story of the prosecution and the ingredients of Section 137 (2), 87 BNS do not attract in the present matter. He further added that due to enmity, present applicant has been implicated and false and concocted story has been narrated in the First Information Report. There is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant. He added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant as mentioned in paragraph no. 34 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.7.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the the victim is minor, therefore, her statement has no legal validity. He next added that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific allegations against the applicant, as such he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the statement of

¶11

the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS do not corroborate with the prosecution story; the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.7.2024; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Yameen Shahid, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of

¶19

the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Anuj Sing h

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Yameen Shahid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yameen Shahid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Angad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sateesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Aadya Prasad Tiwari Vs State O U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.